The SDMB goes where the US population fears to tread. So, this thread goes ahead and asks that question.
Here are a few resonas why they hate us. YMMV:[ul][]Emasculation of the Voice of America, so that it failed to provide effective public relations and propaganda.[]The Muslim religion as practiced and taught by certain groups is based on hate. []Envy of our success.[]Some Arab leaders are demogogues who use hatred to help maintain power.[]America-hating leftists have set out to teach the world to despise American and Western values.[]Wussy American and European foreign policy that has allowed hate-mongers to remain in power. (E.g., failure to overthrow Saddam.) []American and European policy that has even supported hate-mongers (E.g., Arafat.)[]The hijacking of the United Nations by countries which do not support freedom, democracy, and human rights.Willingness on the part of Western nations to look the other way, while this hijacking was going on. [/ul]
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]American and European policy that has even supported hate-mongers (E.g., Arafat.)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
… and e.g. several various brutal South American dictators whom the U.S. supported over the years, on the grounds that, hey, at least they aren’t commies.
The need to hate somebody. America is a prime canidate for “Pure Hate” ™.
We are sucessful, healthy, and relativly rich in comparison to most of the world.
We are proud of what we have. (arrogant mostly though)
We want the rest of the world to be like us. (democracy, ok strecthing a bit I think)
We police the world and stick our noses into places we really don’t belong.
Do you have a cite on the UN being in control of countries that don’t support freedom and human rights? What do you base this off of? I would say the actions of the UN seem to be dictated by a humane hand, if a bit political. How do you Hijack something such as the UN?
They also hate us (as a country, at least), because of certain US foreign policy decisions. I know that, in Iran, at least, our support for the Shah alienated a lot of otherwise friendly Iranians. One of the Ayatollahs said in an interview after the Iranian Revolution, something like “We didn’t believe Carter would do it [support the Shah]. We knew he was a Christian and supported human rights.” US foreign policy, combined with what a lot of people see as the empty materialism of our culture, has alienated a lot of people.
Alternatively (to the OP):[ul][li]Overthrow of the legitimate government of Iran, followed by the support (for 27 years) of the author of one of the most brutal secret police agencies in the world[/li][li]Overthrow of the legitmate government of Guatemala (followed by 30+ years of support for the authoritarian regime and its death squads)[/li][li]Involvement in the Vietnamese civil war, including the support of several successive corrupt regimes[/li][li]The “collateral” involvement in the other countries on that peninsula, leading to the disruption of politics (and life) for most of them[/li][li]Support for the imposition of authoritarian (and corrupt) rule in the Philipines[/li][li]Support for the imposition of authoritarian (and corrupt) rule in Indonesia[/li][li]Actual assistance in the destruction of democracy in Chile[/li][li]The attempt to subvert the legitimate rebellion in Nicaragua, paying the former repressive Somosista National Guards to destabilize the new government and murder people, while calling them “freedom fighters”[/li][li]The mining of harbors in El Salvador[/li][li]The attempt to subvert Honduras in our attempts to destroy Nicaragua[/li][li]The invasion of Grenada to “save” students who were not in danger so that we could build the exact airport that we claimed was going to be a staging base for Soviet aircraft[/li][li]A forty-two year cold war against Cuba–continuing for twelve years after it ceased to be a client state of our primary enemy and including stupid laws passed to punish our allies if they do not happen to share our paranoia[/li][li]Ten years of watching Israel ignore the agreements that they had signed at Oslo, then pretending shock (Shock! I tell you) that the people whose land Israel has occupied for thirty-five years would respond with violence to the perception that we have supported their continued subjugation[/li][li]Over forty years of refusing to hold Israel responsible for its part in the Mid-East tragedy (U.S.S. Liberty, destruction of Lebanon, massacres in Lebanon, continued settlement of the West Bank) [ We did give them a wrist slap in 1956, but that was to be “fair” to France and Britain ][/li][li]Frequent involvement in the disruption of African politics over the last forty years[/li][li]Tacit support for Apartheid because those in power claimed to “oppose communism”[/li][li]The shutting down or freezing of assets of a number of legitimate Mid-East financial institutions for involvement with al-Qaeda while refusing to provide evidence that the connection exists (so that an Egyptian or Syrian whose bank can suddenly no longer provide service is left dangling with no recourse and no evidence that the disruption to their life has any more basis than a whim by Ashcroft)[/li][li]General support for any dictator anywhere in the world in the last 57 years if he would give lip service to opposing communism while oppressing his people in nations above and beyond those nations already mentioned[/ul][/li]
Now, I am sure that any number of these little incidents can be explained away or rationalized (even, on occasion, justified) on the grounds of realpolotik over the last six decades. However, they still provide ample reason for people (especially in the world outside Europe) to look upon the U.S. with less than complete favor.
America is very powerful, and uses its power in what it perceives to be its own interests, without (much) regard to the interests of others. This can severely disadvantage some of the others, and they resent it.
America is not unusual in this regard; any other equally powerful country would be in the same position. America just happens to be in the position of being far and away the world’s most powerful country at the moment.
Tomndeb, excellent counterpunch to the OP. Would that my own knowledge of American history was so good. With our protectionist trade policies of the last two decades, perhaps we have been just a tad too ready to use the stick, and too frugal with the carrot?
(Not a comprehensive or particularly illuminating post, I know, but I had to commend Tomndeb and felt I had to at least try to make a contribution to the discussion :rolleyes: )
What do you mean by emasculation? This term seems loaded, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt (I’m feeling generous today).
Also, would you please describe what effective PR and propaganda would entail? For instance, we don’t seem to have a big problem with the UK, but off the top of my head I can’t recall a single example of emotive propaganda that might be responsible for our “love”.
While hate is dangerous, there’s no way a world power will ever be loved by all. So the question shouldn’t be why they hate us (because SOMEONE will always hate us). The question should be what can we do to minimize the hatred as much as possible. I think tomndebbs’s list should be a quide for us.
I certainly agree that US foreign policy has not been perfect. However, to show that these are the reasons why they hate us, one would need to demonstrate that these incidents are worse than what other countries have done, which I do not believe is the case. Furthermore, the US (along with many other countries) has done much bigger things that have improved human rights, such as defeating fascism, peacefully winning the cold war, the Marshall Plan, helping Germany and Japan become prosperous democracies, and founding the United Nations.
Here are quibbles with your examples, tomndebb
True, but note that Iran’s civil liberties have gotten a bit worse since the Shah left and that neighboring Iraq has a worse government than Iran under the Shah.
I know little about the government that was overthrown. Was it any good?
True, but, again, the communists we were opposing were totalitarian and brutal. No America-supported Vietnamese leader come close to the evil of Communist Pol Pot.
If I understand this point, the logic goes[ol][li]Communist leader Pol Pot committed genocide in Cambodia. []The US was fighting Communism in South East Asia.[]Pol Pot’s genocide is the fault of the United States.[/ol]I do not see how #3 follows from #1 and #2. See, we were against the Communists. A more plausible criticism would be that the US failed to win quickly enough in Vietnam so as to deter Pol Pot from coming to power. That’s pure speculation, but it least it goes in the right direction.[/li][quote]
Actual assistance in the destruction of democracy in Chile
[/quote]
Democracy was not destroyed, just temporarily suspended. At the moment, Chile is a democracy with one of the strongest economies in Latin America. Look how much worse things are in neighboring Argentina.
Wait a minute. You were blaming the US for destroying democracies. In Nicaragua, US policy contributed to establishing a democracy. Don’t we get credit?
[quote]
One can speculate on the “real motive.” The fact is, we overthrew a tyranny and re-instituted democracy.
[quote]
[li]A forty-two year cold war against Cuba–continuing for twelve years after it ceased to be a client state of our primary enemy and including stupid laws passed to punish our allies if they do not happen to share our paranoia[/li][/quote]
Again, here’s a case where we’re fighting to restore democracy, by opposing a totalitarian government using peaceful means.
[quote]
[li]Ten years of watching Israel ignore the agreements that they had signed at Oslo, then pretending shock (Shock! I tell you) that the people whose land Israel has occupied for thirty-five years would respond with violence to the perception that we have supported their continued subjugation[/li][/quote]
If you think Israel ignored Oslo more than Arafat did, then we need a new thread. Or, does Arafat get a free pass?
What does this mean? We participated in the boycott, didn’t we?
The Arab world hates us because of these particular peaceful mean of opposing al Qaeda? What steps would they not hate us for?
Yes, this was real-politic, and it worked. It was based on the idea that the USSR was worse than any of these other dictatorships, because it had so much power. The overthrow of the USSR has allowed many new democracies to form.
I am struck that in tomndebb’s list, the US is blamed for tolerating right-wing dictatorships, but not blamed for tolerating left-wing dictatorships.
I just have to comment on this one. Every piece of evidence that we ever got back regarding the effectiveness of the Voice of America was that the people in the receiving countires appreciated that it told the unvarnished truth. Defectors during the Cold War and people interviewed after the Iron Curtain fell all commented that it was the honesty broadcast by VoA that led them to consider the American way superior to that of their own governments. Yet the far Right has whined, unceasingly, that the VoA should be more of a propaganda mill. Such ignorant calls in the face of evidence are astounding. I expected better of you, december.
December, one of the unpleasant realities of power is that those who perceive themselves to be injured by your use of power, and resent you for it, will not forgive you because you use your power to do something nice for someone else.
The bottom line is that, among the considerations which have influenced the decision made by the US about how to wield its power, the consideration of “getting ourselves liked by others” has not often rated very highly. Even uses of US power which were undoubtedly beneficial to others, such as the Marshall Plan, were not primarily adopted with that end in mind. If, in the modern world, it becomes important to the US to be liked abroad, then that has to become a consideration in US policy and the deployment of US power.
“Why do they hate us?” is, IMNSHOWIO*, a useful question only to the extent that we intend to modify our behavior and policies to alter the situation. If it’s because of things like the list Tom provides, and it’s realistic to consider doing such things in the future differently, great, let’s talk about it. If it’s because we let women drive, vote and become professionals, we listen to decadent music and view decadent films, and we don’t operate under a theocracy or a dictatorship, well, fuck 'em.
Actually, after a brief period of revolutionary rule under Khomeini, the Iranian civil liberties came back to about where they were under the Shah–minus the secret police. The Imams wield too much power, but the nation is not a police state.
No. The U.S. destabilized the governments of Cambodia and Laos with constant “anti-communist” action. Had the U.S. supported the democratic elections in the 1950s in Vietnam and provided support for an emerging democracy instead of creating the counterfeit nation of South Vietnam, it is possible that all those nations would have toyed with socialism, then turned away from it as impractical. Ho Chi Minh was not a communist–he sought aid from the communists because the capitalists/“democracies” opposed his attempt to remove his country from colonial rule. It was the idiotic notion that “communism” was trying to rule the world (rather than recognizing that the Soviet Union, not Marxism, was our enemy) that caused us to impose authoritarian rulers on so many people. Had the U.S. not already undermined the Cambodian government, Pol Pot would have had a harder time taking over.
No. It was destroyed, then reborn. (And that was a rather weaselly comment.)
Whose Right-Wing government we supported throughout several reigns of terror.
The Sandanistas established a democratic government. Reagan simply denied it until after they were voted out of office. Every observer country to the first Sandanista elections except the U.S. admitted that the vote was legitimate and that irregularities were local (with the violations in the Somozistan held areas as bad as or worse than the violations in the Sandanistan areas).
Cuba is “a case where we’re fighting to restore democracy, by opposing a totalitarian government using peaceful means”? Sure, the Burton-Helms act is really peaceful; we’ll simply sue Canada into submission. Using sanctions against Cuba while giving trade status to China is a clear example of hypocrisy.
Nope. Blast Arafat all you want; I’m not a fan of his. It was not Arafat, however, who spent ten years saying “We’ll talk about it some day” while building more and more settlements in the OT. The tacit support of the U.S. for that action applies to your OP. Actions against Arafat do not.
The U.S. did nothing for twenty years. Finally, Congress dragged Reagan/Bush to the boycott, while they kicked and screamed that our “good friends” in the de Klerk government were simply fighting Communists.
Read what was posted. Ashcroft and company have frozen assets and refused to produce any evidence that there is a connection. I do not oppose grabbing al-Qaeda assets. I think it the height of hate-engendering stupidity (the point of your OP) to pat them on the head and say “We know what we’re doing, you’ll just have to trust us.”
No. It was the confusion of anyone with a socialist leaning as having been part of the “communist conspiracy”. Had we supported democratic actions regardless of economic theory, we would probably have weaned more of those countries away from the Soviets, sooner.
I am struck that you have changed my verb support to your verb tolerate. Our sin was not in tolerating, but in providing specific physical aid to repressive governmments, delaying the ability of those nations to develop a democratic process.
And as I noted in my first post to this thread:
You can rationalize some of those actions;
you may even be able to justify a few of them.
Neither rationalizing nor justifying an action in which people outside the U.S. can see the suffering it caused will cause them to love us. If they don’t happen to share our particular world view, it will cause them to hate us.
One week of every year is designated National Brotherhood Week. This is just one of many such weeks honoring various worthy causes. One of my favorites is National Make-Fun-Of-The-Handicapped Week, which Frank Fontaine and Jerry Lewis are in charge of as you know.
During National Brotherhood Week various special events are arranged to drive home the message of brotherhood – this year, for example, on the first day of the week, Malcolm X was killed, which gives you an idea of how effective the whole thing is.
I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!
Here's a song about National Brotherhood Week.
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks;
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule....
[Moderator Hat ON]
Edited out of copyright concerns. Don’t quote the bulk of or full text of copyrighted material, december! You’ve done this before. Don’t do it again. --Gaudere
December be glad that this is a virtual community, in a real one you would have been hanged a long time ago:
Guess again pal, it was none of your damm buisness. Non intervention is in the actual chart of the U.N. it means that it’s not up to the U.S. to decide which goverment they can overthrow.
Nice choice of words idiot, suspended :). You are a moron, just for your information. Chile was left with a powerfull army that is almost a power over the state, they have a long way to go. Thanks to americans like you.
If you guys are going to squabble like a couple of schoolgirls, go take it to the Pit before someone gets a skined knee and cries.
tomndebb, while your information is probably historically accurate (if somewhat one sided), I would say that much of it is academic nonsense. The average Middle Easterner, by and large, cares about as much about what the US did in South America 50 years ago as I do about what the Iranis and Iraqis did to each other in the 70s and 80s. Which is to say, not at all.
I’ll bet that people all over the world are basically the same. They have little interest in world politics until a plane piloted by Islamic terrorists crashes into their city or American Black Hawks are patrolling their streets. In other words, people tend to get angry at stuff that screws up their day RIGHT NOW, not 40 years ago.
Other than that, its hard to say why people hate the US without refering to a specific group. I know a lot of liberal types seem to hate the US now. I suspect they read about a particular event in History class and think its trendy to think of America as an evil empire.